Inside Pitch

When Wayne Huizenga owned the Marlins he did it left and right. Pretty sure the doucher that used to own the Dodgers was doing it too.. Pretty common.

Or having one company associated with the team charge another company associated with the team a huge sum of money that all ultimately goes to the team....

And when he wanted more they went in a different direction. They clearly didn't believe he was worth it.

How many years long is your win streak?

Considering the Cubs went in a different direction ..... Guess they don't have a different opinion of him...

Agree 100% There really is nothing about him that screams potential upside or real benefit. When you have to ignore as many red flags as the team would have to do and look beyond the downsides like losing a pick and the money associated with it.. well, it's hard to see the good in signing someone like Arrieta

Well, Joe Maddon, everyone's pick as the super genius manager once said Erick Aybar had one of the highest baseball IQs of any player.... I guess he's an idiot now? Instead we should take the opinion of a dolt that routinely called Howie Kendrick the worst hitter in MLB.. Or was it player? Either way you are a known entity. Considering my comment was a direct response to Stradling, one of several in a multi post exchange, pretty safe I wasn't reading into anything you may have said.. LOL.... But good on you for self identifying. Knowing who you are is the first step towards getting better.

Yes.. except for the fact that he's signed the three biggest FA pitcher contracts in Angels history and the biggest overall -- Weaver. You really should pick a side -- you constantly rail at Arte for spending big money on FAs but you seemingly are chiding him for not liking to pay for pitching. So which is it? Or is the organization incapable of doing right in your eyes because well.. you're you?

Oh -- I wasn't speaking of anyone in particular.... Im just saying we have a lot of guys down there with upside...

I have more faith in the 72 latin arms in the system than you do possibly. I like Edwards because he's a legit SS with a legit bat skills. At his size a move to 2B isn't out of the question. I've seen him play in a few of the tournaments out there including some big time match-ups and he's made it look easy. They have tried pitching him up and in, and he's inside outed balls and taken them the other way like a MLB vet. Kid's got a clue. All this being said.. Its February and there will likely be a Jo Adel that takes a huge step forward again. So my being high on Edwards means diddly in the grand scheme of things. But he's definitely stood out when I've watched him play.

https://www.baseballamerica.com/high-school/xavier-edwards-excels-on-day-1-of-wilson-premier-classic/#uibYokubGEeqqwrC.97

So last year I was on the Angels and Adel train long before it became a talking point. My early HS pick based on the Angels' draft spot and availability this year might be Xavier Edwards... Kid is a midget by MLB standards but good lord does he have bat to ball skills and wheels... Vandy commit so, he's got a brain too...

Please don't try to play yourself off as being above petty discourse -- this exchange has been proof of the exact opposite... "Understanding what others are saying" would require making an actual attempt on your part to look beyond your narratives and actually pay attention to what others have already said. Also, please familiarize yourself with the definition of the word argument.. because presenting one's reasons (sharing ideas), is called presenting an "argument", Buddy. From the start, I've said we don't know how they intend to employ their 6 man rotation so it's pointless to try to take a formal position on anything. We currently have no idea if the Angels rolling with a 6 man rotation means something along the lines of what the Dodgers did or who knows what. So, whether or not you'd call what the Dodgers did a 6 man rotation is pointless and to spend time trying to define it one way or another is effing stupid IMO. Point blank, there is no denying they used 6 roster spaces on 5 rotation spots -- they were simply very creative with how they used the DL and off days. IMO, obsessively asking how it's defined while glossing over it's implementation is again "stupid" and makes for a "stupid argument" -- the implementation is the only thing that's important. SO AGAIN. WE HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE what the Angels intend to do.... I have no idea how my position wasn't clear from hello but I'm also not coming into this with a set opinion that 6 man rotation is bad.... you are. As such every argument you make (there's that word again), is designed to support that viewpoint. The really comical part is that had you actually bothered to try to understand, you'd realize that I'm in agreement with what you claimed was your "main point" that a true 6 man rotation would mean less roster spots elsewhere. We good now, Pal? or are you going to ask me if 6 means 6 or 5 again?

I don't know that I'm ever in a mood to argue stupidity. Hope that answers your question and hopefully your mood improves to where you don't feel the need to argue pointlessly.

Not sure why you are asking me something I've already taken a pretty clear position on.. I don't a give a crap what it's formally called. I have zero interest in defining the usage of 6 or 7 roster spots as a 5 or 6 or 7 man rotation. They can call it whatever they want but, it's not like calling 6 guys filling 5 spots a "5 man rotation" will suddenly mean it will only take 5 roster spots.. Wasn't your "main point" that a 6 man rotation means fewer spots elsewhere? Please tell me how defining it as something else would change the reality that it's 6 roster spaces filling out 5 spots... Or do you not have a point and simply want to argue? Nothing to see here...

Given my initial post wasn't in response to anything you've said, the onus was on you to understand "my point" and not the other way around. To that end... I said a successful 6 man rotation likely makes 5 inning types more valuable to teams -- that's it. The entire statement was speculative as we have yet to see it happen beyond how the Dodgers used 6 SPs last year. No, you are reading me correctly. Whether or not 6 guys filling 5 spots is a 6 man rotation or not is up isn't worth arguing over IMO. I'm not saying that to be combative, I just don't want to argue semantics. Whatever people end up calling the situation it would still require 6 roster spots. What we do know is that the team I pointed to as having used 6 pitchers in their rotation last year saw no ill effects to it's bullpen and didn't negatively impact the rotation. The Dodgers had 6 rotation spots with 24 or more starts -- https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/LAD/2017.shtml Hill, Maeda, Ryu, were all 5 inning pitchers and the 5 SPs not named Kershaw averaged 137 innings on the season. FWIW -- I was pretty shocked at those IP totals myself. I'm genuinely curious to see what they do. I don't have an opinion as to whether or not a 6 man is good or bad, I think it's something new, the closest we have seen to a 6 man rotation is what the Dodgers did last year, but I do believe teams are looking at their success and looking for ways to mimic it on some level.

You seem to be ignoring a lot of things yourself. Its sort of silly to assume that moving to a 6 man rotation means everyone is suddenly a 5 inning pitcher. They aren't going to take a guy that has already been pitching into the 7th inning and say -- "sorry pal, you gotta sit now because 6 man rotation". The reasoning behind my comment is to point out that teams can find some value in a 5 inning guy that might otherwise not be used or would break down. It also depends on how they use the 6th man. The Dodgers ran a 6 man rotation through 5 spots using the 10 man DL and occasionally using them out of the pen. The advent of the 10 man DL as it exists now allows for some gaming of the roster and the Dodgers used it to great effect. It's not the Angels' addition of Ohtani that has Seattle and Texas talking about a 6 man rotation -- it's how the Dodgers did it last year. The other obvious point. They can just as easily choose to carry one less position player instead of a RP.. We have no idea how the Angels intend to employ their 6 man as of yet -- so any rigid positions on whether or not it will work or what impact it will have on the pen are premature.

Jesus -- can people please stop posting Albert Pujols ST pics -- we get it -- he's in the BSOHL.. geesh..

https://www.fangraphs.com/spraycharts.aspx?playerid=1177&position=1B&type=battedball You can play with it and find the type of outcomes you want.

This six man rotation thing is gaining steam. The Dodgers kind of did it last year and were able to get a lot out of their gimpy rotation. This year the Angels are talking about it, Seattle is talking about using it. Texas is too. If the Angels guys all stay healthy and you see people like Tyler Skaggs who has always had the stuff but never put it together for a full season finally DOES put it together.. my guess is you'll see even more teams consider doing it. As Doc has pointed out a great deal lately, there are a lot of guys out there that can deal the first two times through the lineup before wilting -- a 6 man rotation makes it more likely teams will see value in those types and pursue them.

Familiarity breeds contempt. Erick Aybar was one of those guys who constantly caught grief for the things he did.. and yet every out of town broadcast always talked up how smart he was and how he would always be trying to deke guys or position himself for the unexpected... And despite his postseason blunder, how he was one of the best bunters in MLB.

I have to admit -- I laughed at that. Either TD just read it the complete opposite of how you intended it or he's trolling at pretty impressive levels. Either way, it was funny!

Was watching MLB Network last night -- Al Leiter and Jim Thome were among the people discussing Boone and his taking over the Yankees manager spot -- was hilarious to see two pretty accomplished guys both saying the best managers they played for tended to always be the same regardless of the situation, always steady, and weren't prone to reactions or massive changes after a bad spell. Guys that trusted their players and trusted them to play to their abilities.. They praised Boone as a likable guy who is adept at dealing with the media and who's temperament should allow him to succeed. But hey.... Joe Armchair thinks different, they want to see guys who get on guys and blow up all the time...so...

Facts don't matter.. Reality doesn't matter. If people here watched other teams as obsessively as they do the Angels they would see every manager make mistakes and follow the same patterns.. But, again.... reality doesn't matter.

Or in games vs the As... They always tend to play close games, regardless of what team is doing well or poorly.